Interstellar

>>83740874

>questions that are answered if anon actually watched the film: the thread

>>83740874
The black hole is so far away it's basically like another sun. It would take thousands if not millions of years for the planet to actually get sucked into the hole.

>>83741037
or for life to even exist in that planet in the first place which was the sole purpose of the mission. to look for a habitable planet. clearly a black hole stops any kind of activity from happening

>>83741037
>It would take thousands if not millions of years for the planet to actually get sucked into the hole.

no it wouldn't, the planet has a stable orbit and in order for one of those to decay you'd need trillions of years

if it was in an unstable orbit around a singularity it should have hit the roche limit ages ago and stopped being a planet and started being a cloud of debris

>>83740941
that isn't true though

the explicit reason given by the movie for going to BLACK HOLE PLANET was "coop said to lesgo!"

>>83740874
A blackhole is indistinguishable from any other celestial body of the same mass from the outside

since it's in orbit it doesn't really make any different

Time passes differently but creatures on that planet won't know the difference until they develop satellites and gps

>>83741076
How is a black hole stoping any kind of activity from happening?

>>83741076
>using the word "clearly" when you're clearly an uneducated layman

don't drop out of film school

>>83741189
there are quite a few other problems though
first of, a singularity that size is created by the collapse of a large star, B-class and up
issue is that, except in a very few select cases, the collapse of such a star would be paired with a supernova which would immediately render any planets within the system permanently uninhabitable
furthermore for a singularity to actually emit sufficient energy to sustain life on a planet it would need a sizeable accretion disk, and in order for said energy output to remain sufficiently consistent for prolonged habitation of a planet it would need to get refreshed at a constant rate, which is only possible if said singularity is gravitationally bound to a star from which it "leeches" matter

not to mention that a singularity's accretion disk would emit a significantly larger part of it's energy as ionizing radiation than a star would, which in turn would make life virtually impossible.

>>83741413
oh and should be mentioned that the instance in which the collapse of a massive star does not produce a supernova only occurs in the most massive of O-class stars, a class of stars that virtually never forms planets and only lives for a couple million years


honestly with the billions of perfectly fine red dwarves spread around the galaxy, looking for habitable planets surrounding a singularity is just downright insanity

>>83741261
Accidents are the building block of evolution, when you are orbiting a black hole, not enough can happen. It sucks in asteroids and comets, other events which will other wise reach you.

>>83741303
stupid brainlet